WP/28931/2025 of Mr. Joise Thomas Kuzhimattammyalii, Vs Union of India, on 16 March 2026

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is liled seeking to declare the action of Respondent No.2 in refusing to correct the petitioner's Date of Birth and Place of Birth in Passport No.LB7 16989, pursuant to Application No.HY1075114331 125, on the ground that such correction cannot be permitted after lapse of five years from the date of issuarrce of the passport, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct respondent No.2 to correct the same

2. Ms. Vyshnavi, learned counsel representing Sri G. Prem Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioncr and Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned Standing Counsel for Central Gc, e,rnment. for the re spondents

3. L,earned counsel for the petitioner submits was actuall], born on I 5. 10. 198 1 at Muttuch r said birth is duly recorded in the Birth Certi .: Kaduthuruthv Grama Panchayat. She lurther s a clerical mistake at the time of school admiss,r Date of Birth and Place of Birth were wronglv , records as 04.04.1982 and Ayamkudy respecti that subsequently the petitioner approach e educational authorities and the Joint ( Government Examinations, Kerala, by p

29. lO.2OlB corrected the Date of Birth as 1S.1rl Birth as Muttuchira. She submits that the p r possession of other valid documents such as Birth Certificate reflecting the correct Date of I that despite submission of ail the autlr respondent No.2 rejected the request ol the petrt ground that correction of Date of Birth cannot five years from the date of issuance of the origirr is mechanical and arbitrarv. She further that the petitioner :, Kerala, and the :ate issued by the :Lbmits that due to rn, the petitioner's ntered in the SSC elv. She submits I the competent lommissioner for 'oceedings dated t981 and Place of titioner is also in iadhaar Card and irth. She submits 'ntic documents, oner solely on the re permi tted after r[ passport, which rubmits that the impugned action of the respondents is illegal, unreasonable and violative of Articles l4 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner's original passport was issued in the yeat 2Ol4 showing the Date of Birth as 04.04.1982, based on the documents furnished by the petitioner at that time. He submits that as per the existing circular instructions, requests for change of Date of Birth after a lapse of five years from the date of issuance of passport cannot ordinarily be entertarned. He further submits that the petitioner had signed the passport apphcation and affidavit at the time of issuance of the original passport, and therefore the petitioner is bound by the declarations made therein. He further submits that the impugned letter dated 19.08.2025 rejecting the petitioner's request was passed in accordance vvith the applicable circular guidelines

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has produced a Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority, along with other governmenl-issued documents, reflecting the date of birth as l .1 15.10.1981. The oflice Memorandum dated ;2.og.2ol 6 crearl' provides that even in cases u,here more tl-r: I five years have elapsed since the issuance of a passport, tLr passport Issuing Authority shall consider the explanation offere< by the applicant, assess the genuineness of the claim, and 'shz [;. not re_ject such requests in a routine or mechanical manner.

7. In the present case, the impugned lett<: petitioner's request r,r'as rejected solely on the; five vears, ri ithout examining the genuineness o - the authenticity of the supporting documer authorities are expected to consider the explanzr applicant and verify the genuineness of the doct rejecting such requests mechanically..ln this cas,r have farled to examine ttre genuineness of submitted b1, the petitioner, and the request r.r,ar; the ground of lapse o[ time. Therefore, the impul be sustained. rereals lhat the rour-rd of lapse of :he cxpl:rnation or

s. Administrative ion offered by the men ts, instead of , the respondents the documents rejected solely on ned letter cannot B. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed r f.. The impugned letter dated 19.08.2025 passed by responde nt .1o.2 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the pc ritioner,s request for correction of the date of birth and place of birt I in passport No.

L87 16989, in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated

22. O9.2O16. Upon verilication of the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the respondents shall reissue the passport with the corrected date of birth and place of birth, if otheru,ise in orcler. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) rveeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To, PMK

1. The Principat Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi, lndia.

2. The Regional Passport Officer, O/o.Regional Passport Office' D No 8-2'2'15 to

- 219, kuirurguda Sdcunderabad, Telangana - 500003

3. One CC to SRI GAJULA PREM KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC] 4, One CC to SRI KALVALA SANJEEV, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT IOPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies ,W

HIGH COURT DATED: 1 6 10312026

ORDER

WP.No.28931 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 3 Itilf,R2c:s r- CC T )DAY to rrE 5 ) t'